





pa 


ie 
s 
7 


J 





ie 
ws 
ra 


ce 











= 


ue 


te eee 
Tan 


= 


_ 




















Gn the Bill to raise, for a limited time, an additional 
: Military Force. 

Mr, DOUGLAS said: I hope it will not be inferred 
from the array of books with which I am sur- 
rounded, that I intend subjecting the Senate to the 
infliction of hearing them read. My only object 
in bringing them here is, to be enabled to respond 
at once to inquiries, if any should be made, as to 
the authority upon which my statements of fact 
may be predicated. I shall state no fact for the 
accuracy of which I have not the most conclusive 

 authbrity in the. books before me. I regret that 
I did not conclude to: participate in the discussion 
at a period sufficiently early to have enabled me to 
make the requisite preparation. If I had done 
so, I should have been able to compress what I 
have to say within a much smaller compass, and 
to have said itina manner more satisfactory to 
myself and more intelligible to the Senate. I had 
supposed that the only question presented by the 
bill was, to determine whether the additional force 
provided for was necessary for the prosecution, of 
_ the existing war to a speedy and honorable termi- 
nation. The war has been in progress nearly two 
years. Its legal existence was recognized on the 
13th of May, 1846, and it existed, in fact, prior to 
that time, as the official reports of the battles of 
Palo Alto and Resaca will show. The campaign 
of 1846 resulted in a series of the most brilliant vic- 
tories that ever adorned the arms of any nation. 
States and territories were overrun and subjected, 
equal in extent to one-half of the Mexican Confed- 
eracy. California, New Mexico, Chihuahua, Coa- 
huila, New Leon, and Tamaulipas, besides many 
important towns and cities in other States, were 
reduced to our possession. The official reports of 
these conquests are to be found in the published 
documents of last session. The President of the 
United States, in his message at the beginning of 
that session, gave usa succinct history of the prog- 
ress of our arms in these several Mexican prov- 
~inces, and suggested the propriety of ‘ providing 
* for the security of these important conquests, by 
* making an adequate appropriation for the purposé 
‘of erecting fortifications, and defraying the ex- 
* penses necessarily incident to the maintenance of 
‘ our possession and authority over them.” In the 
same message he referred to the three-million ap- 
propriation which he had asked for at the previous 
\ session, and renewed the recommendation. 
\referred to the appropriations which were made in 
anticipation of the Louisiana and Florida treaties 
- a precedents in this case, and adds, that “it was 
- ‘2a contemplation, at the time those appropriations 





He | 





‘were made, to acquire Louisiana from France, 
‘and to purchase the Floridas from Spain, and 
‘that they were intended to be applied asa part of 
‘ the consideration which might be paid for those 
‘ territories.’? Upon this exposition of the prog- 
ress of the war, and of the policy of the\Govern- 
ment in réference to it, the President asked for 
more men and money, for the purpose of conduct- 
ing a campaign into:the very heart of Mexico—of 
reducing her capital, and of holding possession of 
the whole country, until she should accede to such 
terms of boundary and indemnity as we should 
deem: just and honorable. The men and money 
were freely voted, including the three-million ap- 
propriation,which was intended to be applied in part 
payment—the first instalment, for instance—for 
such territory as we might acquire from Mexico ina 

of peace, in addition to what should be deem- 


aa ! 
ed adequate remuneration for the expenses of the. 


war, and indemnity to our citizens. I shall excite 
no surprise, therefore, when I say, that I was not 
prepared to hear this unqualified denunciation of 
the war and of the recommendations of the Presi- 
dent for its vigorous prosecution—especially from 
those Senators who voted for all the war measures 
of last session and the preceding one. I was not 
prepared to hear them denounce the war as unjust, 
unnecessary, and unconstitutional—much less asa 
war of conquest, of rapine, and robbery. We 
have heard these denunciations, within the last 
few days, poured forth from the lips of Senators 
with a solemnity that would seem to carry convic- 
tion, at least to the minds of those who made them, 
that they were well merited; and, what is more 
astonishing, we have heard them from Senators 
who, by their votes, if not their speeches, have 
sustained every war measure which has passed 
since hostilities first commenced by the act of 
Mexico. They now contend, not only that the 
war was unnecessary and unconstitutional, but 
that the President of the United States is the sole 
author of the iniquity. Do gentlemen suppose 
that they can throw the responsibility of their 
own acts upon the President of the United States? 
Do they imagine that they can make the people 

believe that the Executive is alone responsible for 

all the consequences that may flow from the faith- 
ful execution of the laws which they enact, and, 

under the Constitution, compel him to execute? If 
it be a war of iniquity and injustice, you are the 

transgressors! If it be a war of robbery, you are 

the robbers! If it be a war against and in viola- 

tion of the Constitution, yours is the treason! 

You voted for it, under the solemnity of your 


% 





x 


voted to recognize the legal and constitutional ex- 
istence of the war. You helped to pass the law, 
and made it the sworn duty of the President to see 
it faithfully executed. It is your war, as much as 
his and ours; and you will not bé permitted to 
escape your share of its responsibility, while you 
parses in the credit which you claim from 

aving given it your support. I do not intend to 


east any unkind reflections upon any Senator, but 


I do think that I am fully justified by the record 
in the observations which I have just made. It 
would seem that a great discovery has recently 
been made—that the Congress of the United States 
has been acting under an entire misapprehension 
in regard to the nature and character of this war. 
We are now told that the President has changed 
his ground, and now assigns causes and reasons 
totally different and inconsistent with those which 
he gave at the last and preceding sessions; that the 


_causes then were, ** that American blood has been 


shed upon American soil;” the reasons now given 
for its prosecution are, ‘“‘indemnity for the past 
and security for the future.’? The Senator from 
Delaware has made these two extracts from the 
President’s messages the subject of much mirth 
and wit. He has told us that indemnity for the 
past means one-half of Mexico, and security for 
the future the other half. Convinced by this won- 
derful discovery that his efficient support of this 
war has been yielded under a fatal delusion as to 
its true character and objects, he feels constrained, 
now that he has recovered his mental vision, to 
make atonement for the past by withholding sup- 

lies in future. I cannot concede that there has 

een any change in the line of policy originally 
announced by the Executive and supported by his 
friends on this subject. We stand where we then 
stood. The causes and the objects of the war re- 
main unchanged. ‘They were then, and are now, 
comprised in the two brief extracts which have 
been so frequently quoted—‘‘American blood has 
been shed upon American soil;”’ ‘* Indemnity for 


‘the past and security for the future.” 


In the President’s message of the 11th of May, 
1846, in pursuance of which the original act recog- 
nizing the existence of a state of war was passed, he 
referred to ‘‘ the grievous wrongs perpetrated by 
Mexicans upon our citizens, throughout a long 
period of years, remaining unredressed’’—*‘solemn 
treaties pledging her public faith for this redress 
having been disregarded’’—‘‘ our commerce with 
Mexico having been almost annihilated—our mer- 
chants having been deterred from prosecuting it 
by the system of outrage and extortion which the 
Weed authorities have pursued against them, 


_ while their appeals, through their own Govern- 


ment, for indemnity have been made in vain.”’ 
These outrages upon our flag and citizens had 
been so enormous, that General Jackson, during 
his Presidential term, felt himself constrained to 
call the attention of Congress to them in a special 
message, and to express his decided opinion that 
they were sufficient, at that time, to justify imme- 
diate war. They continued with renewed insult 
and injury under Mr. Van Buren’s administra- 
tion, and he, too, expressed similar opinions to 
Congress upon the subject. The appropriate com- 
mittees of both Houses of Congress, as near as I 
now recollect, made reports in which they fully 
concurred with the Executives in the opinions they 








4 


‘oaths. You voted the men and the money. You 


had expressed as to the nature and extent of the 


outrages, and the justice of the remedy suggested. 


Congress allowed their sympathy for the weak- 
ness and degradation of a nominal sister republic 
to Se over their sense of duty to the citizens 
and flag of our own country. Had we acted with 
the promptness which characterized the British — 
and French Governments in cases precisely simi- 
lar, we should have taught Mexico a lesson long 
azo, which would have deterred her from acts of 
hostility upon this country, and saved us the pre- 
cious blood and treasure which have been so freely 
poured out inthis war. The descent of the French 
fleet upon Vera Cruz, and the capture of the fa- 
mous castle of San Juan de Ulua,*for some of 
these very outrages committed indiscriminately 
upon French and American citizens, are familiar 
to the Senate. We all remember that the indem- 
nity and satisfaction were forthcoming on the day 
appointed by the French Admiral. England, whose 
subjects had suffered in conjunction with those of 
France and our citizens, made her demand, accom- 
panied with the notice, that if it was not promptly 
responded to, her fleet would immediately sail from 
the Jamaica station. The money was paid, be- 
cause the demand was made in a tone that Mexico 
could understand. America spoke, as one sister 
would speak to another, in a voice of kindness and 
sisterly affection, but it fell upon Mexican ca as 
an unknown tongue. Mexico, mistaking our mag- 
nanimity for pusillanimity, treated our complaints 
with contempt, and our remonstrances with defi- 
ance. 

The President of the United States, in the mes- 
sage to which I have referred, spoke of these 
things as just ground of complaint and indemnity, 
but not as the causes of the existing war. Forhe 
informed us that the war existed by the act of 
Mexico—that the Mexican army had ‘invaded 
our, territory, and shed American blood upon 
American soil.’’ The precise spot is not stated, 
but the locality is well known to have been on the 
left bank of the Rio Grande, opposite, and not far 
from, Matamoros. Then and there the war actu- 
ally commenced, the Mexican army making the 
attack—the commanding-general having, on the 
morning! of the same day, given notice to General 
Taylor that ** he considered hostilities commenced, 
asd ieee prosecute them.’’ This was on the 
24th of April, 1846. The battle of Palo Alto was 
fought on the 8th, and Resaca de la Palma on the 
9th, of May. Congress recognized the existence 
of the war, and placed at the disposal of the Presi- 
dent ten millions of money and fifty thousand vol- 
unteers, besides the army, the navy, and the mili- 
tia of the United States, for its vigorous prosecution, 
The law passed almost unanimously, there being 
only fourteen dissenting voices in the House, and 
two in the Senate. If the war is unconstitutional 
now, I suppose it was equally so then; and if it 
was unconstitutional then, it must necessarily be 

now, unless that law legalized it, or (if I may 
be allowed to invent a more impressive term,) con- 
stitutionalized it. In either event, Congress sanc- 
tioned it by a vote almost unanimous, irrespective — 
of party distinctions; and confirmed it by furnish- 
ing men and means to an almost unlimited extent. 
I now submit it to the consciences, as well as the 
patriotism, of Senators who voted for that law, if 
they are not estopped from saying that the war is 
either unjust, unnecessary, or unconstitutional ? 












Bi at ( bn 4 i g 
ill return to the recently-made discovery, 
President has changed his grounds in re- 


message to which the 
act of the 13th of May, 1846, was-a patriotic re- 
sponse. I now wish to invite the attention of the 
Senate—especially those Senators who have hith- 
erto supported the war, and now oppose it upon 
the ground that the President has recently shifted 
positions by setting up a’claim for indemnity—to 
the following extracts from a document which was 
sent toGeneral Taylor, from the War Department, 
on the 4th of June, 1846, and by him promulgated 
to the Mexican people: 

“A Proclamation by the General commanding the Army of 

the United States of America, to the people of Mexico: 


“ After many years of patient endurance, the United States 
are at length constrained to acknowledge that a war now 
exists between our Government and the Government of 
Mexico. For many years our citizens have been subjected 
to repeated insults and injuries, our vessels and cargoes have 
been seized and confiseated, our merehants have been plun- 
dered, maimed, imprisoned without cause and without rep- 
aration. At length your Goverument acknowledged the 
justice of our claims, and agreed by treaty to make satisfac- 
tion, by payment of several millions of dollars; but this 
treaty has been ‘violated by your rulers, and the stipulated 
payments have been withheld. Our Jate effort to terminate 
al! difficulties by peaceful negotiation has been rejected by 
the dictator Paredes, and our minister of peace, whom your 
rulers had agreed to receive, has been refused a hearing.” 


‘This is the first statement which our Govern- 
ment ever made to Mexico, of the purposes for 
which the war she had made upon us, was to be 
prosecuted on our part. 

Let me read another extract from the same doc- 
ument—it is a choice morsel: 

_ We come to obtain reparation for repeated wrongs and 
injuries; we come to oblain indemnity for the past and secu- 
vity for the fulure.”? 

The identical words which have frightened the 
Senator from Delaware from his propriety, if not 
his duty, and which, when found in the President’s 
late message, have converted the Senator from a 
firm friend to an irreconcilable opponent of the 
war, upon the ground that they furnish evidence 
of a change of policy on the part of the Execu- 
tive! Ifindemnity for the past means one-half of 
Mexico, and security for the future the other half, 
why did not the Senator then see as clearly as he 
now sees, that it was the object of General Taylor, 
as well as the President, to conquer and hold the 
whole of Mexico? Why did he not then, as well 
as now, denounce the war as a stupendous scheme 
of rapine and robbery? Again, sir, it will be 
remembered, as I have already remarked, that the 
official reports, containing the detailed history of 
our conquests in California, New Mexico, Coa- 
huila, New Leon, Tamaulipas, and Tabasco, were 
before us at the last session of Congress. We 
also had before us at the same time the’voluminous 
correspondence between the Departments of War 
and Navy, and our generals and commodores com- 
manding our armies, and navies in Mexico, and 
upon her coast. The Senator from North Caro- 
lina, who favored the Senate with his views a few 

\ days ago, quoted largely from that correspondence, 

s published in the documents of the last Congress, 

Be show that the President designed from the be- 








ginning to conquer and hold a large ortion of the 


territory of Mexico. He felicitated himself that 
he had established this position beyond all contro- 
versy, by extracts from the instructions of the 


| Navy Department to Commodores Conner, Sloat, — 


and Stockton, and from the War Department to 
Generals Taylor and Kearny. Indeed, all the 
arguments upon which Senators rely to prove that — 
this isa war of conquest and robbery, repugnant 
to the genius, and fatal to the permanence of our 
institutions, are founded upon informatio#commu- 
nicated at the last session, and which was, or ought 
to have been, as familiar‘to them then as now. 
Besides, sir, the fact that the President, at the 
opening of the last session, renewed his tecom- 
mendation of the three million bill, with the distinct 
intimation that it was intended as the first instal- 
ment, in part payment of whatever territory we 
might acquire from Mexico by a treaty of peace 


| and limits, after deducting all claims for indemnity, 


was sufficient notice that the Executive did, at that 
time, contemplate a cession of territory by Mexi- 
co, to the value of three millions of dollars at 
least, over and above the indemnity for injuries to 
our citizens, and the expenses of the war. Taus, 
with a full knowledge of the origin and history of 
the war—of the extent of our conquests, and the 
line of policy in reference to its further prosecu- 
tion, the war bills of the last session were passed, 
making liberal provision in men and means, not 
only for holding what we had conquered, but for 
making new conquests in the very heart of Mexico. 
These bills received the cordial and powerful sup- 
port of Senators, who now tell us that we ought 
to withhold all further supplies, because the Presi- 
dent has changed his whole policy, and converted 
it into a war of conquest. 

Sir, I do not understand that it is, or at any 
time has been, a war of conquest, in the proper 
sense of that term, much lessa war of robbery. It 
is a war of self-defence, forced upon us by ourene- 
my, and prosecuted on our part in vindication of 
our honor, and the integrity of our territory. The 
enemy invaded our territory, and we repelled the 
invasion, and demanded satisfaction for all our 
grievances. In order to compel Mexico to do us 
justice, it was necessary to follow her retreating 
armies into her territory, to take possession of 
State after State, and hold them until she would 
yield to our reasonable demands; and inasmuch 
as it was certain that she was unable to make in- 
demnity in money, we must necessarily take it in’ 
land. Conquest was not the motive for the prose- 
cution of the war; satisfaction, indemnity, secu- 
rity, was the motive—conquest and territory the 
means. 

Mr. President, I cannot dwelllonger on the incon- 
sistencies in which gentlemen on the opposite side 
involve themselves. I have already dwelt too long 
on these preliminary questions. I must proceed 
at once to the main point of my argument. I pro- 
pose to examine the question, whether, on the 24th 
of May, 1846, American blood was shed on Ameri- 
can soil by the Mexican army. That the Mexi- 
ean forces crossed the Rio Grande on that day— 
attacked and killed American soldiers stationed on 
the left bank, is conceded. But it is denied that 
the left bank of that river was American soil; or, 
in other words, thatthe Rio Grande was the bound- 


ary line between Mexico and the United States, 


after the admission of Texas into the Union. It 





Na 


ve 


_ is my present purpose to establish the affirmati 

of thie proposition." Sa: ogee ta 
~ I will premise, that, in my judgment, a radical 
error has generally obtained in regard to the char- 
acter of the revolution which resulted in the estab- 
lishment of the Republic of Texas. It seems to 
have been generally supposed that Texas rebelled 
~ ‘against the constitutional authorities of Mexico, 
and, by means of a successful revolution, estab- 
‘lished her independence. ‘No such thing. Texas 
never rebelled—never revolted. Precisely the 
reverse was the fact.. A few military leaders, 
with Santa Anna at their head, conspired and 
rebelled against the ‘Republic of Mexico—scized 
the reins of government—abolished the Federal 
Constitution and the State governments—and es- 
tablished a military despotism in their stead. 
That rebellion, which commenced in the city of 
Mexico, assumed the dignity of a successful revo- 
lution, and by the aid of the army extended its 
. power from State to State, until it had reduced to 
subjection all that portion of the Republic of 
Mexico which lies to the south and west of the 
Rio Grande. .The people on this side of the Rio 
Grande took up arms in defence of the consti- 
tutional government of the Republic of Mexico— 
State and Federal—maintained their authority, and 
limited and confined the power of the revolutionary 
government to the right bank of that river. To 
show that I am clearly right in this position, it 
will be necessary for me to refer somewhat in 
detail to the most prominent facts connected with 
~ the history of Texas, as well as the revolution 
which led to the establishment of that Republic. 
From the date of the Louisiana treaty in 1803 to 
that of the Florida treaty in 1819, this Government 
‘uniformly claimed the Rio Grande as the western 
boundary of the United States. In 1805, Messrs. 
Monroe and Pinckney declared to the Spanish 
minister, that the United States considered their 
title to the Rio Grande as complete, under the 
Louisiana treaty, as to the island of New Orleans. 
As late as 1818, Mr. Adams, Secretary of State 
under Mr. Monroe, after carefully reviewing all 
the evidences of title, referring in detail to all the 
' musty records, maps, and geographies of France 
and Spain, as well as England, affirmed the propo- 
sition that our title was as good to the Rio Grande 
as to the island of New Orleans. In the mean 
time, and before the cession of the country be- 


_ tween the Sabine and the Rio Grande to Spain by’ 


the Florida treaty, many American citizens had 
emigrated to that territory, in the full confidence 
that the Government of the United States intended 
to maintain its claim to the country, and that they 
would be protected in the enjoyment of their rights 
as American citizens. - When they found them- 
' selves abandoned by their own Government, and 
by a treaty stipulation converted into the degraded 
subjects of a foreign prince, they instantly raised 
the standard of rebellion, protested against the 
ratification of the treaty, and proclaimed their firm 
resolve, in case it should be ratified, to free them- 
selves by force of arms from Spanish dominion. 
. The treaty was finally ratified in 1821, and the 
same year these Americans in Texas joined the 
Mexicans in a revolt, the object of which was, to 
throw off the Spanish yoke and establish for 
themselves a republican government similar. to 
our own. The revolution was successful, and on 
the 4th day of October, 1824, the Federal con- 


jed.— es 


stitution of the Republic “of Mexico was adopt- 


the revolution a provisional govern- 
ment had been established, for the purpose of 
affording protection to the inhabitants, and giving 
energy and proper direction to their patriotic 
efforts in behalf of freedom. By an act of this” 
provisional government, ‘Texas, with her own 
consent, had been temporarily united with the 
province of Coahuila, with this limitation, ‘ until 
Texas possesses the necessary elements to prove 
a separate State of herself.”?. In 1820, after the 
Florida treaty had been signed, and before the 
revolution broke out, Moses Austin had procured 
from the Spanish authorities a grant of land upon 
which he was authorizéd to locate a colony of 
emigrants. He having died before the conditions 
of the grant could be-complied with, his son, Ste- 
phen F’. Austin, procured its renewal and confirm- 
ation by the revolutionary authorities the next 
year, and proceeded to establish his colony under 
the protection of the provisional government. I 
have calléd the attention of the Senate to these 
facts, for the purpose of showing that the early 
American settlers in Texas were not a lawless 
band of intruders, who had forced their way into 
the qountry, in defiance of the laws and constitu- 
tional authorities. With the same view I will read 
the first section of the colonization law of the State 
of Coahuila and Texas, passéd March 24, 1825: 

All foreigners, who, in virtue of the general law of the 
28th August, 1824, which guaranties the security of their 
person aud property, in the territory of the Mexican nation, 
wish to remove to-the settlements of the State of Coahuila 
and Texas, are at liberty to doso; dnd the said State invites 
and calls them.” , q ase ‘ 

Yes, sir, the State of Coahuila and Texas, in 
pursuance of the colonization law of the Federal 
Government, “ invites” and ‘* calls” foreigners to 
come and settle within its limits. She went fur- 
ther, and offered large tracts of land as induce- 
ments to come, and conferred all the rights and 
privileges of citizenship upon every emigrant who 
might respond to the call. On the IIth day of 
March, 1827, the constitution of the State of Coa- 
huila and Texas was adopted. It had been form- 
ed in conformity with the Federal constitution, 
and in pursuance of an act of the Federal Con- 
gress. ‘This State constitution, and the constitu- 
tion of the Republic, may be considered as the 
articles of compact—the bond of union—between 
«the State and the Confederation. They contain 
the terms and the conditions upon which the State 
of Coahuila and Texas constituted.a member of 
the confederacy. I have these two instruménts, 
before me, and will invite the attention of the Sen- 
ate to the first five articles of the constitution of 
the State of Coahuila and Texas: 

Arr. 1. The State of Coahuila and Texas is the union of 
all the Coahuiltexanos. 

Arr. 2. It is free, and independent of the other Mezican 
States, and of every other power and dominion whatsoever. 

Art. 3. The sovereignty of the State resides originully 
and essentially in the general mass of the individuals who com- 
pose it ; but they shail not, of themselves, exercise any other 
aets of sovereignty than those pointed out in this eonstitu- 
tion, and in the form which it provides. 

Art. 4. In all subjects relating to the Mexican’ Confeder- 
acy, the State delegates its powers and rights to the general 
Congress of the same; but in all that belongs to the internal 
government and administration of said State, it retains its 
liberty, independence, and sovereignty. 

Arr. 5. Wherefore, the right of establishing its funda- 
mental Jaws through the medium of its representatives, in 
conformity tothe basis established in the constitutive act 
and general constitution, helongs exclusively to the said 
| State. 

t 





1 





: 





__ These were the conditions upon which the Tex- 
-ans becam 


( e citizens of the Mexican confederacy, 
and were the terms alone upon which they could 
be required or expected to continue such. They 
had been invited and called there, through the col- 


onization laws, with the guarantee that they should | 


be protected in the enjoyment of all their rights as 


citizens, agreeably to the forms of the constitution. | 


They were ‘free and independent of the other 
Mexican United States, and of every other power 
and dominion whatgoever.’’ They continued true 
and law-abiding citizens, faithful to the constitu- 
tion of the State and the confederation until their 
seat of government was invaded about the Ist of 
June, 1835, by a revolutionary army from the city 
of Mexico, a portion of the members of the Legis- 
lature, which was then in ‘session, captured and 


- imprisoned, and the rest compelled to save their 


lives by flight, and seek a place of refuge on this 
side of the RioGrande. The inhabitants between 
that river and the Sabine instantly took up arms 


in defence of their liberties and republican institu-. 


tions, and for the purpose of checkin’ the progress 
of the invading revolutionary army. For the pur- 
pose of concentrating their forces, and giving energy 
and a proper direction to their patriotic efforts, 
they assembled in convention on the 3d of Novem- 


' ber, 1835, and, after making a ‘‘ solemn declara- 


tion’”’ of the causes which had compelled them to 

take up arms, proceéded to organize a provisional 

government. I will read the first and the conclu- 

ding paragraphs of this declaration : 

“Declaration of the People of Texas, in General Convention 
assembled. 

‘¢ Whereas, General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna and 
other military chieftains have, by fouee of arms, overthrown 
the Federal institutions of Mexico, and dissolved the social 
compact which existed between Texas and the other mem- 
bers of the Mexican Confederacy ; now, the good people of 
Texas, availing themselves of their natural rights, 

* SOLEMNLY DECLARE, 

_ Ist. That they have taken up arms in defence of their 
rights and liberties, which are threatened by the encroach- 
ments. of military despots, and in defence of the republican 
principles of the Federal Constitution of Mexico.” 

‘* These declarations we solemnly avow to the world, and 
eall God to witness their truth and sincerity, and invoke 
defeat and disgrace upon our heads, should we prove guilty 
of duplicity.?? 

Now, sir, I propose to invite the attention of the 
Senate to the state of things then existing in the 
city of Mexico, and to trace the causes which had 
rendered it necessary for the Texans to take up 
arms in defence of the constitution and liberties of 
the Republic of Mexico, which were in danger of 
being overthrown by military despots. In 1834, 
Santa Anna, who had been elevated to the Presi- 
dency by the military power, (deposing Busta- 
mente, the acting President, who had become very 
obnoxious to the people,) and had subsequently 
been confirmed in his seat by a popular election, 
proceeded to execute the design he had formed of 
subverting the constitutional government of Mexi- 

co,and of establishing a military despotism in its 
“place. In May of that year he dissolved the con- 
stitutional Congress by a military order, and at the 
same time by a similar order abolished the “ coun- 
eil of government.’? This council was composed 
of one senator from each State, and was required, 
by the constitution, to remain in session during 
the recess of Congress, to act as the advisers of 
the President of the Republic, and to “see that the 


' constitution is strictly observed.’? The council of 
. government was invested with various other pow- 








all business wherein he may consult them, 





ers and duties, which will be found in the fifth 
section of the constitution of 1824, which I hold 
in my hand, and would invite the attention of Sen- | 
ators to 113th and 116th articles, but will not take 
the time to read them.* jvcbiee a 

I will here read a short extract from Mrs. Hol- 
ley’s ‘‘ Texas,’’ to show how these changes in. 
the government were effected, and a new Congress. 
assembled : . 

The constitutional General Congress of 1834, which was 
decidedly republican and federal, was dissolved in May of 
that year, by a military order of the President, before its 
constitutional term ad expired. The eouncil of govern- 
ment, of half the Senate, which, agreeably to the constitu- 
tion, ought to have been installed the day after closing the 
session of Congress; was also dissolved; anda new, revo- 
lutionary, and unconstitutional Congress was convened by 
another military order of the President. This Congress. 
met on the lst of January, 1835.7? © jf on 

One of the first acts, if not the very first, of the 
new Congress, was to depose the constitutional 
Vice President, Gomez Farias, and to substitute in - 
his place General Barragan, one of Santa Anna’s 
co-conspirators. The next act of this revolution- 
ary Congress is thus stated by Mrs. Holley: 

‘‘ By another decree it united the Senate with the House 
of Representatives in one chamber, and, thus constituted, 
it declared itself invested with full powers asa national con- 
vention. In accordance with these usurped powers; it pro- 
ceeded to annul the Federal Constitution and system, and 
to establish a central or consolidated government.” 

1 also hold in my hand another work—‘‘ A His- 
tory of South America and Mexico,’’ by a distin- 
guished member of this body—in which the facts 
of this revolution are recorded with great clear- 
ness and precision. I read from Niles’s History 
of Mexico: 

«‘ Pronunciamentos were again resorted to; these were 
now made to favor centralism, and on the strength of these 
resolutions of town meetings, manufactured by order of the 
bishops of each diocese, Congress proceeded to abolish the 
constitution of 1824, ABOLISHING AT THE SAME TIME ALL THE 
STATE CONSTITUTIONS AND STATE AUTHORITIES.”? : 

I will read another paragraph, to show the pre- 
cautions which were taken by the usurpers to co- 
erce the acquiescence of the people in the military 
despotism which they were about to establish on 
the ruins of the republican system: : 

‘«‘ Symptoms of opposition having been exhibited in some 
of the States against this act of Congress, levelling the whole 
structure of their State Governments, and in fact annihi 





* Section 5th.—Of the Council of Government. 

113. During the reeess of Congress there shall be a Coun- 
cil of Government, composed of one-half of the members of 
the Senate, one for each State. : 

116. The attributions of this Council are the following: 
First, to see that the constitution is strictly observed, and 
the constitutional acts and general laws, and to give their 
advice in any incident relative to these objects. Second, 
to lay before the President any observations conducive for 
the better compliance of the constitution and laws of the 
Union. Third, to determine of themselves only, the advice 
of the President, the ealling of extraordinary sessions of , 
Congress; but in either, it shall require the vote of two- 
thirds of the councillors present, as stated in attributions 17 
and 18 of article 110. Fourth, to grant their consent to the 
ealling out of the local militia, in the manner stated in arti- 
cle 110, attribution 11. Fifth, to approve the appointment 
of officers designated in attribution 6, article 110. Sixth, to 
give their consent in the case referred to in article 112, re- 
striction first. Seventh, to name two individuals who shall, 
in conjunction with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, 
provisionally exercise the supreme executive power, as 
prescribed in article 97. Eighth, to administer the oath 
stated in article 101 to those individuals of the supreme ex- 
ecutive power, in the terms provided in this constitution. 
Ninth, to give their opinion on subjects referred to them by 
the President, by virtue of the 2ist faculty of article 110, and 


* 


‘ 


+ 


_ siderable force was ordered to be permanently quartered in 


_allagree on every material Poe 


* the wager of battle. 


Jating the very-name of State, provision was made by Con- 4 
gress for a large increase of the standing army, and a con- 
each State, under the command of the new Governors now. 
to be appointed by the President.” . as 
The decree for the establishment of the new gov- 
‘ernment bears date the 3d of October, 1835, and is 
“ formed upon the plan of Toluca for a basis.” I 


have no less than three other histories before me, 


in which the same transactions are recorded, and 
I will read from 
them if any Senator shall desire it. The presence 
of the military kept the people in subjection, and 
the revolution was complete so far as the capital 
was concerned. Its power extended in every di- 
rection. State after cae submitted uncondition- 
ally before the march of the revolutionary army, 
until it took. up its position on the borders of 
Zacatecas’. Here, for the first time, it met with 
formidable opposition. Alvarez, the republican 


’ Governor of that State, had raised an army of five 


thousand men, and awaited the approach of the 
revolutionists, for the purpose of deciding the fate 
of the Republic, its constitution and liberties, by 
Santa Anna, who command- 
ed his troops in person, knew too well the charac- 
ter of these stern republicans to hazard his life and 
fortunes upon ‘the issue of an engagement with 
them. They had fought with him and under him 
in achieving the liberties of the country—they had 
been his main reliance in many a hued fousht bat- 
tle in resisting the encroachments of despotism— 
they had been instrumental in his elevation to the 
Presidency, under the conviction that he, who had 
contributed so much to achieve, would exert him- 
self to preserve their liltrties. He feared, as well 
he might, a trial of strength with such men in such 
acause. In this emergency he resorted to his 
usual recourse—stratagem. Several of his most 
reliable officers in the revolutionary army deserted 
their posts, effected their escape, and joined the 
patriots, with the avowed purpose of fighting in 
defence of the constitution. ‘They tendered their 
services to command the patriot army, and unfor- 
tunately the offer was accepted. They marched 
the Zacatecans out to meet the enemy, and placed 
them in a position where Santn Anha surrounded 
and murdered more than one-half of them before 
the rest were aware of the treachery of their offi- 
cers. ‘The slaughter was indiscriminate, and con- 
tinued for two entire days. It was not confined 
to those who bore arms. The streets of the city 
of Zacatecas were deluged in blood. The unof- 
fending citizens shared the fate of those who had 
engaged in battle. Even foreigners, who had 
taken no part in the contest, were not permitted to 
escape the general massacre. 
Those who survived, now submitted uncondi- 
tionally to the power of the usurper, and no further 
«resistance ensued. The revolutionary army now 
turned its course towards Monclova, the seat of 
government for the State of Coahuila and Texas, 
for the purpose of chastising the Coahuiltexands 
for their obstinacy in adhering to the republican 
constitution. The Legislature of that State had 
solemnly protested against those revolutionary 
movements, and announced its determination to 
sustain and enforce the constitution and form of 
overnment which all were sworn to support. 
or this offence, General Cos, the brother-in-law 
of Santa Anna, dispersed the Legislature by mili- 
tary force, captured and imprisoned a portion of 
- s 4 ? 





“ 


‘the members, while the others only saved them- 


| selves by fleeing across the Rio Grande. The 


Senate will pardon me for reading a single para-> 
graph on this point from the report of General 
Austin to the Texas convention, on the 30th of 
‘November of that year: ES aS 
“The constitutional authorities of the State of Coahuila 
and Texas solemnly protested against the change of gov- 
ernment, for which act they were driven by military force 
from office, and imprisoned. The people of Texas protested 
against it, as they had a right to do, for which they have 
been declared rebels by the Government in Mexico.’? 
Prior to the capture of Monclova, and in antici- 
pation of such an event, the Legislature had au- 
thorized Governer Viesca to remove the archives 
of State, and convene the representatives of the 
people at such point on this side of the Rio Grande 
as he should designate. General Cos pursued and 
captured the Governor and archives, together with 
the gallant Colonel Milam, who afterwards fell sow 
gloriously while storming San Antonio, and threw 
them into prison, At this period the actual war 
commenced between the republicans on this side 
of the Rio Grande, and the revolutionists from 
the other side: the former fighting in defence of 
their State and Federal constitutions, and the latter 
for their total overthrow. There is no room for 
controversy as to the causes of that war, and the ob- 
jects to be attained by the triumph of the one party 
or the other. It was a direct issue between con- 
stitutional republicanism and military despotism. 
The revolution had already been successful to the 
right bank of the Rio Grande, and its victorious 
armies were now preparing for new conquests on 
this side of that river. The republicans instantly 
seized their arms and attacked the garrisons, 
which the usurper: had taken the precaution to 
station at various points, for the purpose of over- 
awing the people and holding them in subjection 
to the new government which he was about to 
establish. All their early efforts were crowned 
with success. Victory perched upon their ban- 
ners at every point. Gonzales, Conception, Go- 
liad, San Patricio, and finally San Antonio—all 
surrendered to the republicans before Christmas. 
While these important movements were being 
enacted in the field, the republicans had not been 
unmindful of the necessity of establishing a pro- 
visional government, to combine and consolidate 
their resources, and give force and direction to their 
efforts. After the capture and imprisonment of 
Governor Viesca, who had been authorized by the 
Legislature to assemble the representatives of the 
people at such point as he should designate, they 
were left to select their own time and place of 
meeting. They did assemble at San Felipe de 
Austin on the 3d day of November, 1835, and put 
forth the ‘* solemn declaration,’’ to which I have 
already called the attention of the Senate, and pro- 
ceeded to form a provisional government. In that 
declaration, it should be born in mind, they state 
distinetly that they had taken up arms in defence 
of the republican principles of the constitution of 
1824. The revolutionary army, under General 
Cos, had passed the Rio Grande and marched 
upon San Antonio, and a republican army was 
immediately organized and sent to repel the inva- 
ders. | wil aie weary the Senate with the details 
of the movements on the plains of San Antonio. 
The gallant conduct of the heroic Milam, in lead- 
ing the storming party into the very heart of the 





city, and his fall, just as victory was within his 








‘1st. That General Cos and his officers retire, with their 
arms and private property, into the interior of the Republic, 
under the parole of honor; that they will not in any way 
oppose the reéstablishment of the Federal Constitution of 
1824, 


* * oa * * * eae 


3d. That the General take the convicts brought in by 
Colonel Ugartechea beyond the Rio Grande. 


* * * * * * * * 

14th. General Burleson will furnish General Cos with 
such provisions as can be obtained, necessary fur his troops 
to the Rio Grande, at the ordinary price of the country,”’ 

Such was the fate of the first revolutionary army 
that invaded Texas—defeated, captured, and de- 
péndant upon the generosity of the Texans for 
provisions to enable them to return to their own 
country. But there are two important points 
in these articles of capitulation, which we should 
constantly bearin mind while discussing the bound- 
ary of the Rio Grande. The first is, that General 
Cos and his army were released upon the condi- 
' tion ‘* that they will not in any way oppose the 
reétablishment of the Federal Constitution of 
1824;” and secondly, that they should retire into 
the interior of the Mexican Republic, taking with 
them the convicts “beyond the Rio Grande,”’ 
being furnished with supplies by General Burleson 
‘to that river. The preliminary conditions were 
complied with on both sides, and here ended the 
first Mexican campaign into Texas. There was 
not a Mexican garrison nor a Mexican soldier left 
on this side of the Rio Grande. One campaign 
had placed the whole country in the acknowledged 
and undisputed possession of the Texans. The 
withdrawal of the enemy’s troops gave the Texans 
time for deliberation to devise and establish for 
themselves a more perfect government. On the 
2d day of March, 1836, they adopted * the unani- 
mous declaration of independence;’’ and on the 
17th of the same month, they signed and published 
the constitution which I hold in my hand. It is 
the ‘‘Constitution of the Republic of Texas;”’ 
which, on all essential points, conforms to the 
principles of the Mexican constitution of 1824, 
and our own free institutions. By looking over 
the signatures to this constitution, as well as the 
declaration of independence which preceded it, [ 
find an important fact, which may throw some 
light on the question of boundary. From the 
municipality or county of Bexar, I find the follow- 
ing names, viz: Francisco Rouis, Antonio Na- 
varro, J. B. Bodgett. From the municipality or 
county of San Patricio, are the names of John 
Turner, B. B. Goodrich, Jesse Grimes, J. G. 
Swisher, G. W. Burnett. Now, sir, by reference 
to Mitchell’s map, which I have before me, I find 


these municipalities or counties laid down as ex-. 


tending from the Nueces to the Rio Grande; and 
in Mrs. Holley’s Texas, I find a very interesting 


account of the town of San Patrick, on the west | 
Jacinto. There, on the 2lst of April, 1836, the 


* side of the Nueces, and which, I understand, was 





fo Se gS a MR POP OR ELS Ct ene Niel rat We 





oY P i is 
re i fr stat a hn : 
ae Mil Wa y e > F Aig 
S or 4 ¢ ‘ Pi 
°° x , ' ~ 5 
4” 7 f t ? 
4 eo Se =o "i 3 , . , 
ints ries d Bs. Fs. Bae: Z Gast pe A 
ee ‘ uy Fl Pati a i Bea 


the seat of justice of the county of San Patricio, — 
until it was removed to Corpus Christi, by the act 
of the 18th of January, 1845. 0 <# 

I will read Mrs. Holley’s description of San. 
Patrick, written in the year 1836: Pre 

“ San Patrick.—This is an Irish colony, situated in Mc- 
Mullen’s and MeGloin’s grant, on the right bank of the 
Nueces. A number of Irish families have settled here, and — 
many others will probably find an asylum, with the certain 
prospect of plenty and independence. The settlement of 
Irish colonies in this grant is the great object of the Em- 


‘| presarios, who are themselves ‘ exiles of Erin.? The Mezi- 


can garrison ut this place surrendered to the patriots on the 


3d October, 1835.7? ‘ BARCROFT LIBRARY pT ~ 
I shall have occasion, before I close my remarks, 
to refer to the various acts of the Texan Congress, 
fixing the times of holding courts in the counties 
of San Patricio and Bexar, and especially the.act. 
of the 24th of May, 1838, establishing the dividing. 
line between them. I will here content myself 
with the remark, that by that act, the boundary 
was declared to be adirect line from a certain point 
on the Rio Frio, thirty miles above its junction 
with the Nuecés, to the town of Laredo, on the 
left bank of the Rio Grande. Iam not now dis- 
cussing the question as to the boundaries of the 
department called Bexar or Texas under the Span- 
ish Government, or during the revolutionary strug- 
gle of the Mexican people for independence; much 
less the idle and useless question as to the imagin- 
ary boundary, during the period that Texas and 
Coahuila constituted one State in the Mexican con- 
federacy. I care not whether Coahuila and Tam- 
aulipas were supposed to have theoretical pos- 
sessions on this side of the Rio Grande prior to 
the overthrow of the Federal constitution of 1824. 
If they had such possessions, they lost them when 
they lost their State sovereignty, by acquiescing 
in the revolution, and submitting to the degrada- 
tion of becoming a mere department in Santa Anna’s 
military despotism, with their diminished and cur- 
tailed limits. By that act of submission they for- 
feited all right to require their fellow-citizens on 
this side of the Rio Grande to become co-sufferers 
in their degradation. ‘The bond of union was dis- 
solved by their own act, and by their wrong;.and 
the people on this gide, in the counties of San 
Patricio and Bexar, had a right to be represented, 
as they were represented, in the convention which 
proclaimed the independence and formed the con- 
stitution of the Republic of Texas. The question 
now to be determined is, what were the bound- 
aries of the Republic, not the department of Texas. 
I have shown that the first invading army had been 
captured, and sent beyond the Rio Grande, and 
that, on the first day of January, 1836, there was 
nota Mexican soldier on this side of that river. 
While the Texans were engaged in improving and 
remodeling their civil institutions, Santa Anna was | 
preparing and organizing a new army of invasion. 
He crossed the Rio Grande, and entered the set- 
tlements of Texas with two invading columns— _ 
the one in the direction of San Antonio, and the 
other upon Goliad. The slaughter of Travis and 
his fellow-patriots in the Alamo, and the murder of _ 
Fannin and his entire command at Goliad, after they 
had entered intoa capitulation and become prisonefs 
of war, foreshadowed the fate of all who might fall 
into the hands of the Dictator. The work of de- — 
struction continued, with fire and sword, until the 
two hostile armies met on the banks of the San 


BANGROFT LisRaR’ 


‘gallant little Texan army, under the command of 


_the distinguished Senator before me, literally an- 
-nihilated the Mexican forces, leaving more than. 


one-half of them dead upon the field, and capturing 
the rest—not allowing even one to escape to tell 
the tale of the terrible retribution which the God of 
Battles had inflicted upon them for their merciless 


crimes. The murderer of Fannin and his men was 


now a captive pleading for his life in the hands of 
the Texan General. The generals of the two 
armies, and the Executives of the two nations, (for 
such they were now acknowledged to be,) imme- 
diately opened negotiations for a treaty of peace, 
independence, and boundaries. At length, on the 
12th of May, 1836, the treaty was signed by Presi- 
dent Burnett and his cabinet on the part of the Re- 
public of Texas, and General Santa Anna on the 
part of Mexico. The caption shows who were 
the parties to this treaty. I will read it: 

“ Articles of agreement and solemn compact, made and 
adopted by James G. Burnet, President of the Republic of 
Texas, and the undersigned members of the eabinet thereof, 
on the one part, and Don Antonio Lopez. de Santa Anna, 

, President of the Republic of Mexico, and Don Vincente 
-Filisola, general of division, Don José Urea, Don Joaquim 
Ramires y Sesma, and Don Antonio Goana, generals of bri- 
gades of the armies of Mexico.”? 


After a preamble, the first article proceeds as fol- 

 lows:, 

*¢ Therefore, it is agreed by the President Santa Anna, 
and the Generals Don Vincente Filisola, Don José Urea, 
Don Joaquim,Ramires y Sesma, and Don Antonio Goana— 

“Ist. That the armies of Mexico shall, with all practi- 
cable expedition, evacuate the territory of Texas, and retire 
to Monterey, beyond the Rio Grande.’? . 


The second article provides that the Mexica 
army ‘shall abstain from all pillage and devasta- 
tion” on their retreat. I will invite especial atten- 
tion to the third, and a part of the fourth articles, 
as follows: 


3d. That the army of Texas are to march westwardly, 
and to occupy such posts as the commanding general may 
think proper, on the east side of the Rio Grande or Rio 
Bravo del Norte. 

“Ath. That the President Santa Anna, in his official char- 
acter as chief of the Mexican nation, and the Generals Don 
Vincente Filisola, Don José Urea, Don Joaquim Ramires y 
Sesma, and Don Antonio Goana, as chiefs of armies, do 
‘solemnly acknowledge, sanction, and ratify, the full, entire, 
and perfect independence of the Republic of Texas, with 
such boundaries as are hereafter set forth and agreed upon 
for the.same.” ‘ 


The fifth article prescribes the boundaries of the 
“Republic of Texas. I will read so much as relates 
to the southwestern boundary: 

*¢Sth. That the following be, and the same are hereby, 
established and made the lines of demarcation between the 
two Republics of Mexico and Texas, to wit: The line shall 
commence at the estuary or mouth of the Rio Grande, on 
the western bank thereof, and shall pursue the same bank 
of the said river to the point where the river assumes the 
name of the Rio Bravo del Norte, from which point it shalt 
proceed on the said western bank to the head waters, or 
source of said river, it being understood that the terms Rio 
Grande and Rio Bravo del Norte apply to and designate one 
and the same stream.”? _ 

The sixth and seventh articles relate to the re- 
lease of prisoners and the restoration to Texas of 
all fortresses, artillery, and munitions of war with- 

in her limits, ; 

_ In article eighth, Texas undertakes, in consider- 
ation of the foregoing provisions, to spare the life 
of Santa Anna and his officers, and to restore them 
to their liberty. 

_ Article ninth is as follows: Se) hs 
“9th. The release of the President Santa Anna shall be 
made immediately on receiving the signatures of Generals 





Don Vincente Filisola, Don José Urea, Don Joaquim Ramires 
y Sesma, and Don Antonio Goana, to this agreement, and 
his conveyance to Vera Cruz as soon afterwards as may be 
convenient.” Se Ses SHA +3 


It will be borne in mind, that the generals named 
in the ninth article were not prisoners, and that 
after the capture of Santa Anna, General Filisola 
succeeded to his powers as commander-in-chief of 
the Mexican army. The remaining articles relate 
to the mode in which these were to be executed. 
General Filisola, and the other officers named in 
the ninth article, did subsequently sign and ratify 
‘this treaty; and, in pursuance of it, were permitted 
to retire, with the forces under their command, in 
peace and security beyond the Rio Grande. Here 
ends the history of the second invasion of Texas 
by Mexico. Like the first, it resulted in the total 
annihilation of the invading army—its defeat and 
capture. Texas was now free and independent, 
without a hostile foot upon her soil. ‘There was 
not a Mexican soldier to be found on this side of 
the Rio Grande. Those who survived the battle 
of San Jacinto, and returned to their own Country, 
did so by the permission of the Texan army, and 
under the sanctity of a treaty stipulation that the 
Rio Grande should forever remain the line of * de- 
marcation between the two Republics of Mexico 
and. Texas.’’? Itdoes seem to me that I might stop 
here with safety, and rest the question of the bound- 
vary of the Rio Grande upon the incontrovertible 
facts which I have brought to the notice of the 
Senate. But, sir, I am well aware, that while no 
Senator will controvert the truth of any one mate- 
rial fact which I have stated, or the fairness and 
impartiality with which all my facts have been 
presented, yet it will be said that the treaty to 
which I have alluded was not binding upon the 
Mexican nation, because Santa Anna wasa prisoner 
of war, in captivity, at the time of itsexecution. | 
do not deem it necessary to make an argument on 
this point, so far as Santa Anna is himself con- 
cerned, for it can make no difference with the re- 
sult. General Filisola, and the other generals who 
subsequently signed and ratified that treaty, in 
conjunction with him, were not prisoners of war— 
were not in duress or captivity when they exe- 
cuted it. They were at the head of their respect- 
ive commands, in the full enjoyment of all their 
faculties, and the free exercise of all their rights, 
when they signed and ratified the instrument, 
They acted upon their own judgments and of their 
own volition, and made no pretext of duress or 
coercion. If, then, the captivity of Santa Anna 
deprived him of the faculties of volition and action, 
Filisola succeeded to his 'position of commander- 
in-chief of the army, and was duly invested with all 
the powers of which he had been deprived. But, sir, 
I cannot concede that the acts of Santa Anna were 
not binding upon himself and his Government. We- 
must bear in mind that the Government of Mexi- 
co at that time was a military despotism, erected 
upon the ruins of the Republic, after the Federal 
constitution had been abolished. Santa Anna was 
the head of that Government, (if, indeed, he was 
not the Government itself;) and the peonls were 
responsible for his acts, because they had submit- 
ted to his rule, and acquiesced in his authority. 
The government had no rightful existence, and no 
other authority than that which resulted from vio- 
lence and power. It had extended its authority, 





by successful revolution, to the Rio Grande, and 





% 


. visions. 


| to that extent the people were bound by its acts. 


It had failed in two successive attempts to estab- 


lish its power on this side of that river, and the 


evidence of that failure is to be found recorded in 
letters of blood in the treaty of San Jacinto, sealed 
with the impress of the government’s captivity, and 
witnessed by the dead of more than one half of the 
revolutionary army. The failure of Mexico to 
conquer and reduce to subjugation, is conclusive 
evidence of the right of the inhabitants to govern 
themselves.. This treaty is an acknowledgment of 
that right, and, as such, is good evidence of the 
independence and boundaries of the Republic of 
Texas. I donot insist that the treaty conferred 
any new rights upon Texas, either in respect to 
her independence or limits; for they existed before 
the treaty was signed and independent of its pro- 
Her inalienable right of independence 
resulted from the subversion of the constitutional 
government of the Mexican confederacy; the fact 
of independence, with the boundary of the Rio 
Grande, was evidenced by the total annihilation of 
every revolutionary army which had presumed to 
enter her territory, and the expulsion of every 
hostile foot from her soil. The treaty is a valid 
acknowledgment of both the right and the fact. It 
was entered into for a consideration, which, it is 
reasonable to suppose, was not only desirable, but 
invaluable to Mexico. The life of her Chief Magis- 
trate, and the Safety of thousands of her soldiers 
and officers, depended upon it, and were secured by 
it. In fact, the whole conduct of the Government 
of Mexico, from the date of that treaty through a 
long series of years, has clearly shown that she re- 
garded the Rio Grande as the boundary of Texas: 
but claimed the right of reconquest, as she is pleased 
to term it, inasmuch as the treaty had not been 
ratified according to the forms of the constitution, 
which had been abolished nearly two years previ- 
ous. Texas was permitted to remain in the 
undisturbed possession of the territory for years. 
Invasion and conquest were constantly threatened, 
but no attempt was ever made to carry the threat 
into execution by a regularly-appointed army until 
the year 1842, six years after the battle and treaty 
of San Jacinto. Iv that year, General Vascus 


ventured to cross the Rio Grande, and, by a rapid 


movement, succeeded, on the 6th of March, in 
reaching and plundering San Antonio. The Tex- 
ans instantly seized their arms, and prepared to 
chastise and repulse the invaders. The result is 
thus recorded in Green’s Mier Expedition: 

*¢ A large number had already assembled under their vet- 
eran leader, General Edward Burleson, always the first in 
the field and foremost in the fight. The BNEMY FLED BEFORE 
tTHem To THE RIO GRANDE, one hundred and fifty miles 
distant.”? 

This was the end of the third regular invasion 
of Texas by Mexico. The invading army only 
escaped the fate of the two preceding’ ones by a 


“hasty flight before the Texans across the Rio 


Grande. Now for the fourth and last invasion 
which Mexico ever attempted, unless, indeed, 
the marauding party under Canales, which was 
promptly met and repulsed, is entitled to the dig- 
nity of that designation. About the Ist of Sep- 
tember, 1842, General Woll crossed the Rio Grande 
with his army, and, by rapid marches, took pos- 
session. of San Antonio on the 11th of that month. 
A few days afterwards he succeeded in capturing 








and murdering a small party of Texans in the 
vicinity of that place. For the result of this inva- - 
sion, I will invite the attention of the Senate to the 
assages which I will read ffom the work I have 
just quoted: v4 | 

* After the massacre of Dawson and his men, General 
Woll made a triumphal entry into San Antonio with his fit 
teen prisoners and some two hundred of his own wounded, 
and prepared for a hasty retreat towards the Rio Grande. 
This retreat was greatly hastened upon hearing that Colonels 
Mayfield, Moore, and McCullough, and others, were coming 
up with remforcements to Caldwell. With all General 
Woll’s hurry in his flight homeward, at the Rio Hondo he 
found Caldwell upon his heels, His retreatbecame a flight 
and a panic; and had the Texans charged him, as all now 
agree, and as all then seemed to be anxious to do, his whole 
force would have fallen an easy prey. Much has been said 
against Caldwell and others for not so doing; and the blame 
has been charged upon several; but the writer has not been 
able to satisfy his mind that any particular individual was 
to blame. Itseems to be one of those mischances in war, 
more the result of accident, or the want of promptness, than 
the absence of bravery. It was, however, a national misfor- 
tune that he was permitted to escape to the west side of the Rio - 
Grande, after murdering forty-one, and carrying off sixty- 
seven of our best citizens.” 3 a 

Thus ended the fourth and last invasion of Texas 
by Mexico. If at any time ads rise ever 
crossed the Rio Grande and approached the settle- 
ments, their flight, before Hays’s and) McCul- 
lough’s rangers, was more rapid than their origin- 
al march. The repulse and retreat, of General 
Woll’s army in the fall of 1842, again left Texas 
in the undisputed enjoyment of her whole territo- 
rial limits, as defined in the treaty of San Jacinto, 
and vindicated by her arms whenever invaded, 
Since the date of General Cos’s capitulation in 
1835. I have said that Hays and McCullough 
always held the marauding (parties in check, and 
repulsed them whenever they invaded the eountry. 
On this point 1 will read a paragraph from the 
speech of Mr. Kaurman, of Texas, in*the House 
of Representatives, on the 27th of June, 1846: 

‘¢ Indeed, the Texas rangers, under the gallant Hays and 
McCullough, have for years held undisputed sway over that 
territory, [the country between the Nueces and the Rio 
Grande,}and we have had such occupation of it as the con- 
dition and wants of our population permitted and required. 
No Mexican forces have ever been stationed on the left [of the 
Rio Grande|]—all their war manifestoes are dated on the 
right.” ; ac Had 

I am aware that I am accumulating evidence on 
this point beyond what ought to be required to 
convince the most incredulous mind. Yet I must 
be permitted to call the attention of the Senate to 
one item more: I allude to the armistice which 
was concluded between the Governments of Mexi- 
co and Texas, on the 15th of February, 1844, and 
the proclamation of General Woll, announcing the 
reopening of hostilities from and after the 11th of 
June of that year. The hostilities which were 
reopened existed only on paper, if we except the 
cruel and barbarous treatment of the Texan pris- 
oners who had been so unfortunate as to fall into 
the hands of the Mexicans m the previous cam- 
paigns. General Woll, acting under the express 
orders of the Mexican Government, at Mier, June 
90, 1844, issued an order or proclamation, of which 
the third section is as follows: 

‘¢ 3. Every individual who may be found at the distance 
of one league from the left bank of the. Rio Bravo Rio 
Grande,] will be regarded as a favorer and accomplice of the 
USURPERS OF THAT PART OF THE NATIONAL TERRITORY, and 
as a traitor to his country.?? aa 

This order is important in two points of view: 
first, that while Mexico claimed the whole of Tex- 


Py 





“aS, as her national territory, she at that time 


regarded and acknowledged the Rio Bravo, or 


Grande, as the boundary. She had previous! 

declared the inhabitants of Texas rebels and trai- 
tors, who were to be put to immediate death; and 
by this order that sentence was applied to every 
person, whether Mexican er Texan, who should 
be found at the distance of three miles from the 
Rio Grande, upon the ground that the fact of being 
there-was conclusive evidence that they favored 
the Texan cause. A Mexican might cross the 
river to the left bank, and save his life by showing 
that he was not a Texan; but if he went one league 
from the Rio Grande, death was his portion, and 
no excuse or explanation would be received. The 
next point upon which this order is important, is 
to be found in the fact of its express acknowledg- 
ment, that the Texans were in possession of the 
country: : . 

‘< Every individual who may be found at the distance of 
one league from the left bank of the Rio Bravo, will be re- 
garded asa favorer and accomplice of the USURPERS OF THAT 
PART OF THE NATIONAL TERRITORY.” 

_Itappears, then, that the Texans had usurped the 
territory.on the left bank of the Rio Bravo, or 
Grande." ‘To usurp, according to Webster, is “ to 
seize and hold in possession by force or without right.”’ 
I have already disposed of the question as to the 
right of Texas ‘‘ to seize and hold in possession 
by force’? the country between the Nueces and 
the Rio Grande; and it is sufficient for my pur- 
pose that Mexico, in 1844, acknowledged the fact 
that Texas had seized and did then hold it'in pos- 
session by force. I have now traced, with a mi- 
nuteness which I fear has been tedious, every 
important fact, bearing upon the question of bpund- 
ary, since the subversion of the federal constitu- 
tion of 1824. In the examination of this subject, 
my mind has been powerfully impressed by the 
circumstance, that in every invasion which Mex- 
ico has ever made of the territory of Texas, the 
Rio Grande has beeu uniformly mentioned as the 
line which the army crossed, and beyond which it 
retreated whenever it was permitted to escape. 
The same’ may be said of the capitulations and 
treaties with the two captive armies. The Nueces 
is not even alluded to, nor can the name be found 
in any one of them. This circumstance is a pow- 
erful argument of itself, and is forced to make a 
deep impression upon the mind of every impartial 
man. 

Having shown that Mexico has never held any 
portion of the country this side of the Rio Grande 
(of course I speak of the lower Rio Grande) since 
the subversion of the constitution of 1824, and that 
Texas has promptly repelled every invasion of 
her territory, { now propose to show that she has 
occupied and governed it by her civil institutions 
during,that whole period. I have already shown 
that every Mexican garrison between the Nueces 
and the Rio Grande, as well as in all other por- 
tions of Texas, was reduced and captured in the 
fall of 1835—that the counties of San Patricio and 
Bexar were represented in the convention which 
established the provisional government in Novem- 
ber, 1835, and also in the convention which de- 
clared the independence, and formed the constitu- 
tion of the Republic of Texas in March, 1836— 
and that by that constitution each of those coun- 
ties constituted a congressional district, with the 








right of sending representatives and senators to 
the Congress of the Republic. I have referred 
also to the act of the Texan Congress of the 24th 
of May, 1838,-defining with greater certainty the 
dividing line between those counties fram the 
Nueces to the Rio Grande, and confirming the 
surveys of land which had been made hy the 
county surveyors of both respectively. On ‘the 
19th of December, 1836, the Congress of ‘Texas 
passed an act defining the houndaries of the Re- 
public, and adopting those designated in the treaty 
of San Jacinto. On the 4th of February, 1842, an 
act was passed fixing the times of holding the 
higher courts in the counties of San Patricio and 
Bexar, and for other purposes. On the 18th of 
January, 1844, another act was passed regulating 
the times of holding courts in those counties; and 
on the 31st of December, 1844, an act was passed 
changing the times of holding courts in those coun- 
ties. On the 18th of January, 1845, an act was 
passed removing the seat of justice of San Patricio 
county to Corpus Christi, and providing for the 
appointment of a presiding judge of the county 
court. On the Istof February, 1845, an act provi- 
ding for the resurvey of all the land in the counties 
of San Patricio and Refugio, the tite of which 
was derived from the Mexican Government or the 
State of Coahuila and Texas, and for returning the 
plats to the general land office of Texas. I have all 
these acts before me, but will not stop to read 
them, unless desired by some*Senator. During 
the whole of the period from the establishment of 
the Republic, these counties were represented in 
the Congress of Texas. They were also repre- 
sented in the convention of the people of Texas, 
which agreed to the terms of annexation, and 
which formed the constitution of the State of 
Texas, with which she was admitted into our 
Federal Union, I hold in my hand the present 
constitution of Texas—the same upon which our 
act of Congress was founded, admitting her into 
the Union as a State, upon an equal footing 
with the original States; and, in the 30th section 
of the 3d article, [ find that the county of San 
Patricio is constituted a representative district with 
one representative, and the county of Bexar with 
two representatives; and in the thirty-second sec- 
tion of the same article is the following provision: 
‘¢ The county of Bexar, the eighteenth district, shall 
elect one senatér. The counties of Goliad, Refu- 
gio, and San Patricio, the nineteenth district, shall 
elect one senator.” 

The third section of the thirteenth article is as 
follows: 

* Section 3d. All laws and parts of laws now in force in 
the Republic of Texas, which are not repugnant to the Con- 
stitution of the United States, the joint resolutions for an- 
nexing Texas to the United States, or to the provisions of 
this constitution, shall continue and remain in, foree as the 
laws of this State, until they expire by their own limitation, 
or shall be altered or repealed by the Legislature thereof.” 

Now, sir, this provision ratifies and continues in 
force all the acts of the Texan Congress to which 
I have referred—the act declaring the Rio Grande | 
to be the boundary of the Republic—the act estab- 
lishing the boundary lines of counties from the 
Nueces to the Rio Grande—the several acts pro- 
viding for the surveys of lands and fixing the times 
of holding courts in those counties—all are con- 
firmed by this section of the constitution. The 
Congress of the United States mustsbe presumed 


-by ‘‘ the act of Mexico.’’ 





tion of the constitution, when the act was passed 
admitting her into the Union. This presumption 
is greatly strengthened by the fact, that within a 
few days after the admission of Texas, Congress 
passed an act extending our revenue laws over the 
territory of the State, and establishing a port of 
delivery, among other places, at Corpus Christi, in 
the county of San Patricio. 

I have now concluded all I have to say on the 
question of boundary. Whether I have succeeded 
in establishing the boundary of the Rio Grande, is 
for the Senate and the country to judge. One 
thing is certain: Mexico never dreamed of any 
other boundary than that of the Rio Grande or the 
Sabine. She was in possession of the country to 
the Rio Grande, and claimed the right to conquer 
to the Sabine. This was the position of Mexico 
towards Texas, as stated by herself, when the lat-_ 
ter was annexed to this country and admitted into 
the Union. 

The question now arises, who commenced the 
present war—the United States or Mexico? This 
seems to be a disputed point between the two great 
political parties in this country, although the gov- 
ernments of the two belligerent countries agree in 
relation to it. Our Government has officially de- 
clared, in the form of a solemn law, all the depart- 
ments concurring, that the war was commenced 
This is our statement 
of the question. Now for the Mexican side of 
the case, as stated by her President and Ministers 
of War and Foreign Affairs. I read from the 
President’s annual message of December 8, 1846. 


‘¢ The apprehensions of a contemplated Mexican invasion 
have been since fully justified by the event. The determi- 
nation of Mexico to rush into hostilities with the United 
States was afterwards manifested from the whole tenor of 
the note ot the Mexican Minister of Foreign Affairs to our 
minister, bearing date on the 12th of March, 1846. Paredes 
had then revolutionized the government, and his minister, 
after referring to the resolution for the annexation of ‘T'exas, 
which had been adopted hy our Congress in March, 1845, 
proceeds to declare, that ‘a fact such as this, or, to speak 
‘with greater exactness, so notable an act of usurpation, 
‘created an imperious necessity that Mexico, for her own 
‘honor, should repel it with proper firmness and dignity. 
‘The Supreme Government had beforehand declared, that it 
©‘ would look upon such an act as cusus belli; and, as a con- 
‘sequence of this declaration, negotiation was, by its very 
‘nature, at an end, and war was the only recourse of the Mex- 
Sicun Government.’ . 

<¢ [t appears, also, that on the 4th of April following, Gen- 
eral Paredes, through his Minister of War, issued orders to 
the Mexican General in command on the Texan frontier to 
‘attack’ ourarmy ‘ by every means which war permits.’ To 
this General Paredes had been pledged tothe army and people 
of Mexico during the military revolution which had brought 
him into power. On the 18th of April, 1846, General Pa- 
redes add:essed a letter to the commander on that frontier, 
in which he stated to him, ‘At the present date, I suppose 
‘you at the head of that valiant army, either fighting already, 
© or preparing for the operations of a campaign ;’ and * sup- 
£ posing you already on the theatre of operations, and with 
‘all the forces assembled, it is indispensable that hostilities be 
‘ commenced, yourself taking the initiative against the ene- 

my. 

_ Thus we find that the Mexican Minister of For- 
eign Affairs, on the 12th of March, 1846, notified 
our minister, that ‘‘ NEGOTIATION WAS, BY ITS VERY 
NATURE, AT AN END, and WAR WAS THE ONLY RE- 
COURSE OF THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT;’’ and that 
on the 18th day of April, 1846, the President of 
Mexico instructed the general of the Mexican 
army that it was ‘ indispensable that hostilities be 


commenced, YOURSELF TAKING THE INI- 


to have been familiar with these laws and this sec- 


-and struck the first blow. 





t 


TIATIVE against THE enemy.” Mexico avows 
the act. It is her pride and boast that she com- 
menced the war—that she took the ‘initiative,’’ 
She makes no com- 
plaint of General Taylor’s march from Corpus 
Christi to the Rio Grande. She knew nothing of 
that movement at the time she gave orders for the 
commencement of hostilities. Her complaint was, 
that our armies were stationed on the west side of 
the Sabine—that we had incorporated the country 
between the Sabine and the Rio Grande into our 
Union, and deprived her of the right which she 
claimed of reconquest. ‘This was her grievance; 
and for this grievance she boasted that she had the 
chivalry to make war against the United States, 
and take the Mitiative. She knew nothing of the 
distinctions in the strength of her title on the one 
side or the other of the Nueces until she found it 
explained in the speeches of American Senators. 
Those speeches are the foundations of her better 
title to the country west than east of that river. 
Up to the commencement of this war, the name of 
the Nueces river cannot be found in any Mexican * 
document—civil or military—addressed to this 
country or Texas, in which she claims a better or 
any other title to that river than to the Sabine. 
Her separate title to the Nueces is a Whig title, 
originating in this country, and derived from Whig 
newspapers and speeches, and adopted by the 
Mexican authorities, for the first time, in the ne- 
gotiation with Mr. Trist ‘fon the Chapultepec 
causeway.’’ She now claims it, because she is 
told that it is hers; but she is unable to compre- 
hend, much less explain, upon what principles her 
separate and better title rests. I repeat, that this 
line of the Nueces was manufactured in this 
country, for the purpose of erecting a platform 
from which to assail the President of the United 
States, and through him the Democratic Pay 
The idea was conceived after the passage of the 
act of the 13th of May, 1846, recognizing ‘‘ a state 
of war by the act of Mexico,’’ and by gentlemen 
who voted for that law. Why did they not then 
tell us that the President had invaded the territory 
of Mexico in violation of the Constitution of the 
United States, and instruct him to withdraw the 
army within the line of our rightful boundary, in- 
stead of furnishing ten millions of dollars and fifty 
thousand men to prosecute the invasion to the 
vitals of Mexico? I suppose the answer will be, 
if any answer shall be made, that they at that time 
were as ignorant as Mexico herself of the exist- 
ence of any better title to the one side than the 
other of the Nueces. 

But, sir, there is one point more to which I wish 
to address a few remarks. It is strenuously in- 
sisted, here and elsewhere, that the letter of the 
Secretary of War, of the 13th of January, 1846, 
ordering General Taylor from Corpus Christi to 
the Rio Grande, was the real cause of the war. 
Some go so far as to charge the President with 
giving the order for the purpose of producing 
war; while others, who are more charitable, con- 
tent themselves with saying that it was an act so 
imprudent and reckless, that any man in his senses 
ought to have. known that war would have been 
the inevitable consequence. It often becomes 
necessary in military movements, on a theatre 
remote from the capital, to trust much to the supe- 
rior local knowledge and discretion of the com- 


2 


‘ t ‘ 


manding general in respect to the P 
of the forces under his command. 
case in this instance. General Taylor was put in 
full possession of the views of the Government, in 
sending him to Texas, and left to select his own 
position. Those views were, the defence of: the 
western boundary of Texas from invasion, and the 
preservation of friendly relations with Mexico, if 
possible. He selected his position at Corpus 
Christi, and after remaining there several months, 
on the 4th of October, 1845, he wrote to the de- 
partment as follows: 

«Sir: I beg leave to suggest some considerations in rela- 
tion to the present position of our force, and the dispositions 


which may become necessary for the more effectual prose- 
cution of the objects for which it has been @@ncentrated.”? 


After-a detailed exposition. of the reasons for the 


recommendation which he was about to make, he 
‘ 


proceeds as follows: 

‘¢ For these reasons, our position thus far has, I think, been 
the best possible; but now that the entire force will soon be 
concentrated, it may well be a question whether the views‘of 
Government will be best carried out by our remaining at this 
point. Itis with great deference that I make any suggestions 
on topics which may become matter of delicate negotiation ; 
but if our Government, in settling the question of boundary, 
makes the line of the Rio Grande an ultimatum, I cannot 
doubt that the settlement will be greatly facilitated and hastened 
by our taking possession at once of one or two suitable points 
on, or quite near, that river. Our strength and state of prep- 
aration should be displayed in a manner not to be mistaken. 
However salutary may be the effect produced upon the bor- 
der people by our presence here, we are too far from the 
frontier to impress the Government of Mexico with our 
readiness to vindicate by force of arms, if necessary, our 
title to the country as far as the Rio Grande. The ‘ army of 
occupation? will in a few days be concentrated at this point, 
in condition: for vigorous and efficient service. Mexico 

_ having as yet made no positive declaration of war, or com- 
mitted any overt act of hostilities, [do not feel at liberty, 
under my instructions, particularly those of July 8, to make 
a forward movement to the Rio Grande without authority 
from the War Department.” 


These are the recommendations of General Tay- 
lor: ‘*I cannot doubt that the settlement will be 
greatly facilitated and hastened by our taking pos- 
session at once of one or two suitable points on, 
or quite near, that river,’’ the Rio Grande. “I do 
not feel at liberty, under my instructions, parti- 
cularly those of the 8th of July, to. make a for- 
ward movement to the Rio Grande, without au- 
thority from the War Department.” General 
Taylor was the commanding general on the the- 
atre of action. He had better opportunities of 
knowing the movements, intentions, and feelings 
of the Mexicans, than any one else. He had pre- 
viously, July 20, 1845, given the department this 
assurance: ‘* and the department may rest assured 
that I will take no step to interrupt the friendly 
relations between the United States and Mexico.”’ 
Relyingfupon the faith of this assurance, and upon 
his better means of information, the department 


complied with his request, and gave him the de-. 


sired order ‘‘for a forward movement to the Rio 
Grande.” General Taylor had recommended it 
as a peace measure, calculated to facilitate and 
hasten the settlement of the boundary question; 
and in that view, and on that recommendation, the 
order was given. It is clear, therefore, that Gen- 
eral Taylor, and he alone, is responsible for that 
order. If it was right and wise, his is the merit; 
and if it was wrong, he ought—as I have no doubt 
he is perfectly willing—to take the responsibility. 
I have no doubt that the order was an act of pol- 
icy and wisdom—nay, of necessity. 


- 








roper disposition | But, sir, who are the men that ‘condemn this : 
Such was the. ; 


order, and for what purpose is the condemnation 
made at this time? They are the professed advo- 
cates of the election of General Taylor to the 
Presidency, and the order is condemned for the 
| purpose of making political capital for themselves 
and their candidate, against the Democratic party. 
Under the influence of the same patriotic motives, 
it has suddenly been discovered, by a portion of » 
those who voted for the war, that’ it was unjust, 
unnecessary, and unconstitutional. ‘They can see 
no hope of rescuing the ship of state from the 
hands of the wicked rulers who are directing its 
course, except by the elevation to the Presidency 
of a man, whose very name has been introduced 
to the knowledge of the civilized world only by 
his extraordinary success in shedding human 
blood in an unjust cause! By denouncing the war 
as a scheme of rapine and robbery, they, in effect, 
charge Generals Taylor and Scott, and all the offi- 
cers and men under their command, with being a 
band of successful robbers, murderers, and pirates, 
whose only title to the gratitude of their country- 
men is derived from a series of unparalleled tri- 
umphs in violation of the Constitution of their 
country, over a weak and an unoffending people! 
Should it hereafter be to us a matter of surprise to 
hear all Europe, whose jealousy has been aroused 
by our growing greatness and importance among 
the nations of the world, denounce us as a nation 
of robbers and pirates, when they can refer to the 
speeches of American Senators for the truth and 
justice of their statements? Suppose gentlemen 
succeed in making the world believe that the war 
in which we are engaged, and which has been 
sanctioned by the nation according to all the forms 
and solemnities known to the Constitution, is un- 
necessary and unjust—a war of rapine and rob- 
bery —their only triumph of which they can boast 
will be, that they have rendered the name and 
the fame of their country infamous in the eyes of 
Christendom. Whose heart did not swell and 
pulsate with patriotic pride as he heard the shout 
of the glorious victories achieved by our country- 
men wafted from the plains and mountains of 
Mexico, striking terror to the hearts of all ene- 
mies of republican institutions, and demonstrating 
that ours is the first military, as well as civil power, 
upon the globe? Sir, I shall never forget the proud 
and grateful emotions of my own breast, when the . 
response was heard from all parts of the Union to 
the call for volunteers in the summer of 1846, 
showing that more than three hundred thousand 
had tendered their services, when only fifty thou- 
sand could be received. Was that response 
prompted by a love of plunder and robbery; or 
was it a patriotic response from the hearts of free- 
men, burning with a fervent desire to avenge their 
country’s wrongs and vindicate her rights? Shall 
it be said that in republican America the only 
sentiment which can animate and arouse the whole, 
people—which can quell partisan strife and oblit- 
erate party distinction, for a time—is an insatiable 
lust for rapine and robbery, upon our unoffending 
and unfortunate neighbors? Such must be the 
fruits of the victory, if gentlemen triumph in the 
efforts they are now making in regard to this war. 
All the emotions of my heart and the feelings of 
my nature revolt at the idea. National and State 





pride rebels at the thought. My own State has 














eae 
os. 
i 











yin. 








